Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Dozens of the Republican Party’s leading presidential donors and fund-raisers have begun privately discussing how to clear the field for a single establishment candidate to carry the party’s banner in 2016, fearing that a prolonged primary would bolster Hillary Rodham Clinton, the likely Democratic candidate.
I think this is a bad idea for them. I remember watching a talk by KellyAnne Conway once where she explained that the 2000 election was in large part decided by the adversity the candidates faces in the Primaries. Her point was that the minute McCain won New Hampshire Bush was forced to be a better candidate- he had to stay focused, his team had to work harder and he had to be willing to pivot from issue to issue as the climate dictated. That is when he switched from 'compassionate conservative' to 'reformer with results.' In contrast Gore had a cake walk after New Hampshire finished off Bradley and came into the general making the kind of mistakes (and even debate performances) that would typically be polished out during the primary.
The reason Romney had problems in 2012 is that he was not a strong candidate. His inability to dispense of B and C list primary challengers proved to be prophetic of his general election performance. And if anything being challenges actually led him to be much more prepared for the debates. Its forgotten just how thoroughly Romney bested Obama in the first debate. Romney's other problem in 2012 was keeping up with Obama's fundraising since none of it had to be spent on primaries. That will not be a problem with a better R candidate who can fundraise more effectively- and won't be perceived as capable of self-funding- and with Hilary needing to spend in at least the early primary season.
I think this is a bad idea for them. I remember watching a talk by KellyAnne Conway once where she explained that the 2000 election was in large part decided by the adversity the candidates faces in the Primaries. Her point was that the minute McCain won New Hampshire Bush was forced to be a better candidate- he had to stay focused,,,
The reason Romney had problems in 2012 is that he was not a strong candidate. His inability to dispense of B and C list primary challengers proved to be prophetic of his general election performance
Exactly right. Competition improves the breed. In 2012 we saw one 'not Romney' after another lead in the GOP polls. There was Cain, Santorum, Perry, Gingrich, and all proved unsuitable, and I think it made Romney stronger. I disagree that Romney was not a strong candidate. He did in fact overcome all these challengers (mostly they all imploded on their own).
Romney lost in 2012 largely due to identity politics. Romney won 59% of the white vote. You don't do that as a weak candidate. But he lost 80% of the non-white vote due to Pres. Obama's much greater focus on, and facility with, manipulation of the electorate via identity politics.
Dozens of the Republican Party’s leading presidential donors and fund-raisers have begun privately discussing how to clear the field for a single establishment candidate to carry the party’s banner in 2016, fearing that a prolonged primary would bolster Hillary Rodham Clinton, the likely Democratic candidate.
They can discuss all they wish, but they are not going to be able to clear the field for Romney, Bush and Christie. I'll be shocked if Romney even runs, and surprised if Bush runs.
They are not going to be able to muscle out people like Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Susana Martinez, Bobby Jindal, etc.
If we have to have a mainstream center-right candidate, let's make it Rubio or Susana Martinez. Neither of them are hard-right, but are sufficiently conservative to appeal to the grass roots and either would be light years better in the general than Bush or Christie.
I don't think the party really is pushing Romney at all, i think the media is in charge of that. He has said over and over: No, NO, No. The media would love to see him back in so they could annihilate him once again. We need a social middle of the roader who is consrvative fiscal view and one that knows when we need to be in other countries and when to get the hell out.
IMO Bush won't run. Supposedly Columba Bush (his wife) is not thrilled with being in the limelight and is very uncomfortable speaking English in public. Not to mention the troubles he is going to have because of his last name ...
IMO I think the party establishment is still banking on Romney making a 3rd run.
I think this is a bad idea for them. I remember watching a talk by KellyAnne Conway once where she explained that the 2000 election was in large part decided by the adversity the candidates faces in the Primaries. Her point was that the minute McCain won New Hampshire Bush was forced to be a better candidate- he had to stay focused, his team had to work harder and he had to be willing to pivot from issue to issue as the climate dictated. That is when he switched from 'compassionate conservative' to 'reformer with results.' In contrast Gore had a cake walk after New Hampshire finished off Bradley and came into the general making the kind of mistakes (and even debate performances) that would typically be polished out during the primary.
The reason Romney had problems in 2012 is that he was not a strong candidate. His inability to dispense of B and C list primary challengers proved to be prophetic of his general election performance. And if anything being challenges actually led him to be much more prepared for the debates. Its forgotten just how thoroughly Romney bested Obama in the first debate. Romney's other problem in 2012 was keeping up with Obama's fundraising since none of it had to be spent on primaries. That will not be a problem with a better R candidate who can fundraise more effectively- and won't be perceived as capable of self-funding- and with Hilary needing to spend in at least the early primary season.
Romney flip-flopped and then flipped again on so many issues that no one knew what he stood for or whether they could believe what he was saying when he ran. While Obama projected a blank slate, Romney had the entire slate covered.
Dozens of the Republican Party’s leading presidential donors and fund-raisers have begun privately discussing how to clear the field for a single establishment candidate to carry the party’s banner in 2016, fearing that a prolonged primary would bolster Hillary Rodham Clinton, the likely Democratic candidate.
I think the GOP is desperate to find a candidate that can spell IQ.
You mean like 3 letter word Biden and his J-O-B-S?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
